Tiring of the threads that dwell on complaints, or stimulate arguments over "this versus that", I decided to get my mind back on a positive vein, and think how we could improve our models and layouts, getting them more in line with the prototypes. And then it hit me......
If we have scale track and sized locos and cars and structures, the logical next step is to have those components in scale weight. If we are going to mimic the prototypes, lets do it right - and go all the way!
Shouldn't be much of a problem, for after all, a small loco weighing in a 500,000 lbs would only be 5,745 lbs in HO scale.
That may be a tad heavy but consider that 120 lb prototype mainline rail (to the yard) would equal about 959 lbs for a 36 inch strip of HO flextrack - which could easily support those scale weight locos and rolling stock.
Of course there is a glitch in all this....... we would have to seriously reconsider our benchwork construction - perhaps substituting plywood and "2 bys" with structural steel beams and concrete............
Think about it......... it could be the wave of the future, bringing in more and more young folks into the Hobby!
ENJOY !!!!
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
You're overlooking something. You are dividing the prototype weight by 87. You need to bear in mind you have to devide it by all THREE dimensions. 500,000 Divided by 87, divided by 87, divided by 87 equals 0.759 lb... 12.1 ounces. Not at all a hard weight to acheive. Many HO locomotives weigh in over a pound.
Not a bad concept, I suppose, prototype weight. But then again empty cars, fully loaded ones, tighter than prototype curves and switches. You can create quite a series of problems unless you do EVERYTHING to prototype proportions. Dan
Ummm, divide by three dimensions??? I'm afraid I don't understand that (but would like to.).
As far as prototype load weights, even depleted uranium wouldn't help achieve the goal.
You have to take into account that when you divide the weight of a given object, you have to do so for all three of it's dimensions. It's width, length and height. An HO Locomotive is 1/87th as long as a real one. And it's 1/87th as wide, 1/87th as high. Thus you "cube" your equasion for the weight as well. Make sense?
Interesting.
So, if a scaled down locomotive weighed 5,745 pounds, what would be the approximate dimensions if it retained the proportions of the prototype loco?
Alton Junction
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
Southgate is correct, weight, or mass, is a cube root equation. So to find the scale weight of an HO scale item you would do just as he says, divide by 87 three times or simply divide by 658,503 the cube of 87.
A 100,000 lb box car comes out to abou 2.42 oz.
A 500,000 lb loco = 12.14 oz
Our equipment is already at or above scale weights.
Here is some more light reading on the subject:
http://webspace.webring.com/people/ib/budb3/arts/tech/wght.html
Sheldon
Thanks guys! I've done this before (determined scale weight by dividing by 87) and the results just never made sense - but a lot of things don't make sense to me (i.e. marrying the same woman twice, children that listen to everyone but their parents, etc., etc.).
Well, I guess it comes down to the fact that our HO models are relatively close to "scale weight" after all.
Whew, another of life's questions answered before I meet the Big Man (Woman?) in the sky!
Hey, that's a good point! Gravity is the reason we have "weight" in the first place.
I wonder how my HO locos would operate on the moon? I'll bet they would take steeper grades and pull more cars. But maybe not, for their weight on the drive wheels would be reduced proportionally....... So maybe it would not make a difference.
Glad I had my steel cut oatmeal this morning, this "thinking" is using up all my bodily juices...........
I remember Linn Westcott dealing with this issue of scale weight (and the need to remember the three dimensions) in the mid 1960s. But that still doesn't scale down inertia which is why flying switches and hump yards on our models are still hard to impossible to replicate without gimmicks.
The next frontier of course is scale cost. Should our models cost 1/87th of the prototype, or should it be 1/87th x 1/87th x 1/87th? We might be paying far too little for our trains for them to be truly prototypical, and that should make us very, very sad.
He said. With a wink.
Dave Nelson
mobilman44 Ummm, divide by three dimensions??? I'm afraid I don't understand that (but would like to.). As far as prototype load weights, even depleted uranium wouldn't help achieve the goal.
Let's work the equation in reverse. Let's say you had an HO scale block 1" X 1 " X 1", or one cubic inch and it weighed 1 ounce. That would scale up to represent a block 87.1" X 87.1" X 87.1" which equals 660776.311 cubic inches and the same number of ounces which equals 41298 lbs., so an object weighing just one HO ounce represents one weighing over 20 tons in the real world.
Edit: I just realized those little 1/4 ounce weights we put in our boxcars to bring them up to NMRA standards each weighs 5 scale tons. No wonder a little weight makes a big difference.
As far as 3-D and weight, think of it this way: Say you have a 40' steel boxcar, a real one, and you wanted to fill it with HO model 40' boxcars. If you put 87 HO boxcar models inside the real car, would it be full?? No, it would be almost totally empty. To take up the same space as the real boxcars, you'd have to have have 87 rows of boxcars, each row 87 cars long and stacked 87 high. Similarly, taking the weight of the boxcar and dividing it by 87 isn't going to give you the correct weight the 1:87 model should be.
Is this going to be the new NMRA RP? :)
Joe Staten Island West
Interesting to note that some of the poster's, paid attention in school.
Striped
I fully understand the nature of this post...I was building a 1/2" scale SD50 in 1990 and needed to figure on it's weight in scale. Something in the order of 31 lbs based on a cubic calculation given to me by an engineering friend. The locomotive was destroyed on my move to Nevada so none of the calc stuff mattered anymore.
I want to toss in a twist to all of this. My bizarre humor as it may. If a real and brand new locomotive...say an SD70MAC might cost 3,500,000 dollars (my guess) then by using the cube root of that number would give us $151. for an HO scale locomotive of the same type.
Not too far from the actual price these days.
Eh...just being a pain in the butt.
Oh...and if the cube is based on 87.1 then that model would only be $5.29.
Okay. It's been a long day...I'm dead tired and going to bed.
Adios
Mark H
Modeling in HO...Reading and Conrail together in an alternate history.
The same holds true for 2 planes (squared) A recent thread on comparision of HO to N scale cost. On thought that the scenery materials would be "doubled" in HO scale, as N is quite close to 1/2 of HO. The scenery (layout surface area) woulds be 4 times in Ho as that to N. You can get techincal and really consider a layer of material as 3 dimensional and the height/ thickness would apply....
Like Charlie Brown says, "Good Grief" interesting thoughts anyway
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
mobilman44 If we have scale track and sized locos and cars and structures, the logical next step is to have those components in scale weight. If we are going to mimic the prototypes, lets do it right - and go all the way!
Although, as folks have demonstrated, weight comes out not that far out of line, strength of materials and construction does not scale correctly - and I am very thankful. I am thankful our track does not wear and deteriorate anything like the prototype's; that our roadbed stays pretty intact year after year. Crumbling cork roadbed is perhaps the exception!
I am thankful that given the number of derailments, our rolling stock stands up to the abuse pretty well. How many prototype locomotives would survive a scaled up dive to the valley floor and only have a few bent handrails to show for the experience.
Mostly, I am thankful that I only need to focus on appearance and operating characteristics of my models to have realistic fun. If there were one prototype feature I would want to scale better, it would be......
In reality, due to our layout space being so compressed instead of to scale, it's very difficult to have any of these operational characteristics scale any where near correctly.
just my thoughts and experiences
Fred W
Hi!
I started this thread to bring some fun into the forum, and while it may or may not have done that, you guys have really added to my education. I like the point about "how may HO scale boxcars would fit into the prototype?"............
I'll have to work on that one.
Like I always say........... ENJOY !!!!
mobilman44 Hi! I started this thread to bring some fun into the forum, and while it may or may not have done that, you guys have really added to my education. I like the point about "how may HO scale boxcars would fit into the prototype?"............ I'll have to work on that one. Like I always say........... ENJOY !!!!
Was a "fun/ interesting" thread, so just how many scale 40' box cars do actually fit in the prototype?
You always like to kick that "sleeping dog" once in a while!
"Was a "fun/ interesting" thread, so just how many scale 40' box cars do actually fit in the prototype"?
In the volume of space occupied by a full scale 40 foot Box Car, you could fit 658,503 HO box cars. Less than this number, if your only talking inside the actual payload area provided by a 40 foot box car.
Let's go further with this speculation, since the issue of scaled materials has been brought up.
If we were giants and could pick up a prototype boxcar as if it was the size of an HO model, would it crumble in our fingers as if made of tin foil? Or would it be fairly durable? I suspect it would be fragile. I have vague recollections of what King Kong did to a New York subway ....
Minus trucks and couplers, of course...
What about scale time? If it's a linear dimension, then shall we divide by 87? But then our scale distance would be affected by both the linear contraction and velocity to cover the distance in a scale second. Don't forget about the gravitation effect as we cross the event horizon to bring back some black hole dirt.
But if we could solve this whole Time and Relative Dimensions in Space problem, we could have plenty of room for our layouts since the layout room would be bigger on the inside.
jmbjmbWhat about scale time? If it's a linear dimension, then shall we divide by 87?
If you have a scale mile and are running at scale speeds then time remains the same. But most of us don't have scales distances so we use fast clocks to speed up time.
Steve S
Mobilman44:
Your thread is indeed fun! We all need something every once in a while to make our eyeballs go funny!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
We talk about scale speed, scale time, scale dimensions and scale weight. Has anyone thought of scale light?
Does light scale down? The intensity of light is measured in Lux (lx). A sunny day with a clear blue sky has around 100,000 lx around noon; at sunset, this value goes down to about 50 lx. Now, on our layouts, do we divide this by the scale we model in? Or the square of that value, as the intensity of light can also be expressed by light radiation per sq.ft.?
In any case, if we scale down light, we won´t have to worry about too much detail on our layouts - we will hardly see any
NP2626"Was a "fun/ interesting" thread, so just how many scale 40' box cars do actually fit in the prototype"? 658,503
RTR or Kit
Interesting to note that some of the poster's, paid attention in school
I trust you weren't one of those students who spent too much time looking out the window Frank ? I myself would have never done such a thing of course , but I can tell you that when the railcar, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NZR_RM_class_(Vulcan) ,went past school near the Southland Main Trunk, there was about quarter of an hour before the lunch break.
Thanks Mobilman44.
Cheers, the Bear.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
I see that some of you appear to have no actual sense of humor, what so ever! I took the original poster's question as a humorous question, something to get people to step back and think; Yes, this is, after all, a hobby and I should remember to have fun with it!
I must be wrong, again!